John Cowl MD – comments on “Global Warming”


Not every comment gets there.


Now and again we receive a comment that’s worthy of a front row seat.  John Cowl MD, who we assume to be an American, swung in on our post: Donna Laframboise: “Global Warming” – The Greatest Lie Ever Told: Pt 1 with this well considered piece.  STT thought it worthy of an “uplift”.

John Cowl MD
On Donna Laframboise: “Global Warming” – The Greatest Lie Ever Told: Pt 1
9 January 2014

I am a physician and scientist. It is universally agreed by all scientists that weather comprises regular variations and patterns in environmental conditions. That’s what makes it weather. The patterns, trends, and rates of change in weather, as measured in various ways have become increasingly scientifically verifiable. Those observations can be used to identify, suggest, and support possible causes of the apparent changes in weather patterns which then may be considered Climate Science.

Over the millennia, we know that there have been recurrent ice (or cooling) ages and warming trends that have occurred irrespective of any contribution by pre-industrialized people. It is now possible to assess whether the rates of change have been altered since the advent of industrialization.

The vast majority of scientists are in agreement that the more industrialized we have become, the more radically the changes in environmental conditions have occurred. They have also been able to isolate probable causative/contributory agents in those changes. Ergo, while human activity isn’t the sole cause of environmental changes, there is now considerable evidence that we industrialized people are contributing in a potentially catastrophic fashion to the otherwise expectable environmental changes. In other words, should we encounter a smoldering fire, it would be unwise, indeed, to pour gasoline on it and then claim that we didn’t make it worse because we hadn’t started the fire in the first place.

Long ago, I learned that opinions are like belly buttons. Everyone is born with one; their development required no effort on the part of the possessor; and their existence produces nothing of great value. While Donna may be a dynamic and literate individual, her unschooled opinion is nothing more than another worthless belly button. It ranks up there with some of the wisdom offered by Donald Trump and Dick Cheney whom we all have come to know and love.

I am opposed to Wind Power when sited near people. I am opposed to wasting taxpayer’s dollars while enriching industry which creates no public good in the process. The whole corrupt system of politicians being co-mingled with commercial interests to their mutual benefit is nothing but corruption. It has nothing to do with science. To use current short-lived weather conditions as a refutation of a whole body of Climate Science signals a grotesque scientific ignorance which apparently exists equally on both sides of the conservative and liberal political spectra.

I follow and support STT. However, I wish it could remain scientifically sound and honest while addressing the ample evidence of dishonesty and corruption in the collusion between government and industry.
John Cowell MD

Some fair comments there, John.

STT keeps out of the “climate change” debate, in the main.

However, we recognise that the last line of reserve for the wind industry is the argument that so called, “global warming” requires immediate action – ergo, giant fans have to be slung up all over the planet – without any consideration for the costs of the power generated – or the impacts on human beings, birds, bats or the environment, more generally.

Take away the overblown threat of “global warming” and the wind industry loses its very foundation.

STT is, for the purpose of simplifying the argument, happy to concede that man-made CO2 emissions may cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures – whether or not modest increases in atmospheric temperature from present levels represents a threat to humans or the planet is another question again.

America’s north-eastern States have just been belted with one of the worst blizzards in history – no doubt, causing the deaths of dozens of homeless people who sleep rough in the streets of Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis and elsewhere – who, if given the choice, would have probably plumped for a slightly warmer planet.  But, as John points out, such events should be considered as weather events and distinguished from the “climate”.

As Mark Twain pithily observed: “the climate is what we expect, the weather is what we get”.

The central claim made by wind power proponents is that wind power reduces CO2 emissions – although they rarely, if ever, talk about the actual cost of the claimed reductions.  Probably because there are, in fact, no reductions.

STT has generally focused on the fact that industrial scale wind power does not – and will never – reduce CO2 emissions simply because it is intermittent; being delivered at crazy, random intervals and must be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources.  Accordingly, we call it an environmental fraud.

Because wind power fails to deliver on its primary claim (and the wind industry’s only reason for existence) the $billions in subsidies purloined from taxpayers and power consumers have been received on an utterly false premise. Accordingly, we call it an economic fraud.

Power consumers and taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the subsidies received by wind power generators represent a cost-effective means of reducing CO2 emissions.  STT is happy to provide them with some answers.

We threw up videos of Donna Laframboise precisely because she is, as John says “a dynamic and literate individual”.  Her view point provides our followers with a moment to step back from the finer line of argument that STT takes to look at what has, without doubt, become a global industry based on manufactured fear and media driven hysteria.

STT always baulks, however, when an argument is prefaced with the modern pitch that “the vast majority of scientists are in agreement that …”.  With the greatest of respect, science is not about “consensus” and most certainly isn’t about “agreement”, save to the extent that agreement is required about the essential facts or elements that comprise a particular asserted relationship.

For a simple proposition on what constitutes “science” one might consider the definition propounded by Karl Popper which rested on his concept of “falsifiability” – as he termed it – being the necessity of any scientific hypothesis to include the inherent possibility of that hypothesis being proved to be false.  For science to be science, in Popper’s view, the science must be “falsifiable”.

Science is not conducted by a show of hands or a popularity contest.  Having a million scientists “agree” with a particular hypothesis does not add to the robustness of that hypothesis.  Indeed, the entire point of science is constant conjecture and repeated challenge to establish and maintain a robust and reliable body of fundamental human knowledge.  Humans have been at it – in an organised way – for around 300 years and have improved their lot as the direct result of that quest.

In 1907 – when Albert Einstein – then, a lowly Austrian patent clerk – started scratching out what became known as his theory of “relativity”, young Albert was very much on his lonesome.

In fact, he was roundly ridiculed and criticised by his contemporaries – and it took decades before his theory was taken seriously.  The lack of “agreement” among physicists with Einstein’s theory did not, however, render the theory false or incorrect.  Einstein (correctly) identified that: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”.  Physicists are still trying to prove Einstein’s theories wrong – and so it should be.

“Climate science” is a long way from being “settled” and – if it were truly “science” a single experiment should be capable of showing its central theorem to be incorrect.  Votes on who’s wrong or right are simply irrelevant and, by definition, science is never “settled”.


That bright star creeping over the horizon
might have something to do with the climate.


Consider for a moment the Earth: a ball of gradually cooling rock – molten iron and nickel at its core – spinning at over 900 miles an hour (1,400 km/h) – while hurtling through space – being blasted with radiation from all ends of the spectrum by a fiery ball of exploding hydrogen, called the Sun – two thirds of which is covered in water – some of that water over 7 miles (10km) deep – frozen solid at its ends – with a tropical belt in the middle – half of which is in daylight and the other half in the dark, at any given point in time.

Now, with those few facts in mind it might be reasonable to assume that there are, perhaps, one or two relevant variables in the climate equation, other than CO2 gas.

In Australia the Greens and Labor politicians – as well as the Chicken Littles in the media – are trained to use the phrase “carbon pollution” whenever they’re talking about CO2 emissions.


OK, I can’t see it, I can’t smell it, I’m breathing it out and that
tree is breathing it in. And it’s called “pollution” – I think I get it?


CO2 gas is not a “pollutant” it is an odourless, colourless, beneficial trace gas which is essential for life on earth – next time you’re hugging a tree ask it what it’s breathing.  And it’s what you’re breathing out right now.  So, are billions of regular human exhalations “carbon pollution” too?

Nor is CO2 “carbon” – carbon is an element which is the building block of all life – not to be confused with charcoal or coal soot – which is the dirty imagery deliberately conjured up by the language employed by climate alarmists.

John’s observation that there is “ample evidence of dishonesty and corruption in the collusion between government and industry” is entirely correct.  STT would have a whole lot less to write about if it wasn’t.

However, the current system of nepotism, sleaze, spin, cronyism, rorting and outright fraud evolved from global warming hysteria – a very recent phenomenon.  During the 1970s, Australian school kids were terrorised by the imminent ice age then predicted by climate boffins.  Yet more hysteria, without factual foundation – icebergs haven’t been seen bobbing in Port Philip Bay, as predicted by the “experts”, not yet, anyway.

While John mentions Donald Trump and Dick Cheney, he might have also mentioned Al Gore.

Al is the Obi-Wan Kenobi of climate alarmism.  It was his risible film “An Inconvenient Truth” that helped kick-start the great wind power fraud.  Gore was centre of attention for years – despite the fact that his film contained 9 glaring and fundamental errors – as held by the English High Court.

Gore – like most climate change and renewable energy advocates has his trotters in the renewables trough – so it pays him to keep up his scare campaign.


The original and the best – big Al never let
the truth get in the way of a fat pile of cash.


Australia has its own examples like Tim Flannery and Bernie Fraser – boys who bleat about imminent global doom at every opportunity – while cashing in on their sizeable investments in the so-called “solutions” or otherwise profiting from their miserable (unfounded) forecasts.

STT thinks that “global warming” is nothing like the problem its advocates claim. But, whether or not it’s a “problem” STT is certain of one thing – and that’s the fact that wind power solves nothing.

It will never provide meaningful, reliable on-demand electricity and – because it will never displace base-load generation sources – it will never reduce CO2 emissions.

And that’s a fact.


What eventually ends the greatest economic
& environmental fraud of all time.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. David Norman says:

    I was intrigued by Dr. Cowl’s analogy equating a “worthless belly button” to his determined nature of the “opinion” of Donna Laframboise’s contribution to the analysis of IPCC espousements. In fact, I went so far as to photo shop out the belly button of a very attractive human female model pictured on the internet. When comparing the unaltered and sans belly button photos I found the latter quite alien and esthetically displeasing… interesting. This analogy also reminded me of the inherent nature of Industrial Wind Turbines which are completely dependent on the contribution of CO2 generating fossil fuels for their existence… much like the nature and origin of Dr. Cowl’s belly button to his existence. I would suggest that perhaps Dr. Cowl might spend more time staring at his own belly button to truly appreciate the nature of his absurd analogy.

  2. Bruce Leitch says:

    I thought the comment by John Cowl MD was mostly balanced and reasonable….up until he graciously (sarcasm) enlightened us with his opinion of Donna Laframboise. At this point his comment degenerated into ad hominem attacks and character smears which are the standard tactics employed by the global warming alarmists. Donna is a respected journalist who has written two meticulously researched books on the junk science and corruption practiced by the IPCC. In fact Donna has been invited to give written and verbal presentations to an inquiry to be run by the UK parliament into the latest report by the IPCC – AR5 in late January.

  3. STT, your response was spot on. Thank you for taking the time to post that. When I first was fighting the wind turbine debacle, I refused to integrate the issue with the global warming scare, and as the years passed, it was impossible to ignore that things like wind energy was nothing more than AGW’s well advertised and economically positioned cousin. Take away the problem=take away the scam that is wind energy and other promoted solutions. It’s as plain as that. Again thanks.

  4. Jackie Rovenksy says:

    For too long the hype that CO2 and other suggested pollutants needed to be reduced as a way to save the earth has given the Wind Industry and those who support it an ability to twist the truth and foist lies and thuggery on us.

    It would seem the focus on reducing CO2 is doing nothing, especially when the destruction of forests and digging up of peat bogs is set aside as a necessity for Turbines to save the earth, especially if, as I understand it, forests and bogs are the lungs of the earth, filtering CO2 and pollutants from the air.

    Not only has the main concentration been on Wind Turbines as the saviour, but too little consideration has been given to clearing the pollutants already there.

    One without the other is a waste of time, and if the Climate Change theory is right, time is something we don’t have. So why haven’t those who proclaim the high ground on saving the earth climb down to it and start looking at the whole picture and not just one aspect seen through a flickering shadow.


  1. […] current (and potential) beneficiary of the RET rort is the wind industry and (assuming “climate change” is all down to carbon dioxide gas) it’s yet to produce any credible evidence that wind […]

  2. […] STT is pleased to hear that Pru Goward has taken an interest in what can fairly be described as government gone rotten. The NSW Planning Department – like state planning departments around Australia – is infected with a pernicious brand of groupthink driven by the childish fantasy that wind power is a solution to “climate change” (previously known as “global warming” – until it became evident that it stopped getting warmer 17 years ago – see our post here). […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: